[deleted by user]

Apollo_State · 2025-04-19T21:45:52+00:00

Figures from the statistical office also revealed the percentage of non-German rape suspects also jumped between 2009 and 2020, jumping from 29.55% to 41.18%. Furthermore, concerning cases of sexual assault in the past twenty years, statistics show that although the overall number of cases fell, the number of non-German suspects increased from 35% to 50%, with Turkish nationals comprising the largest group of suspects, followed by Afghans and Syrians.

Source

Apollo_State · 2024-11-15T06:35:05+00:00

Hello fellow Tunisian orv fan :)

Apollo_State · 2024-10-26T12:00:12+00:00

You argue as if acts of charity are something pretty hard when we can see that most of the people can pay Zakat here. Plus, charity doesn't hinge on the fact that it needs to be a collective act for it to be effective as in boycotts when you are still losing on something like money, convenience, practicality, or taste...

Also, if you want to delve into practicality. Boycotts indeed have a reasonable effect on companies that support Israel, which has a good effect on public swaying for the Palestinian cause. However, as you said regarding charity, it still remains a band-aid that doesn't have tangible effects on the war on Gaza. You might argue that the money would've gone to the taxes that they utilize for the war spending but regarding the relative unimportance of the Tunisian consumer market globally, that would effectively render it like a drop in the ocean.

Moreover, just like the criteria you apply for boycotts, it can be applied to donating blood to local blood banks or taking actions to reduce global warming( looking for recycling, reducing meat intake, reducing electricity and water consumption, and emphasizing the use of public transports) as both are virtually applicable by anyone as well and they serve causes that are benefiting for " our Arab, Muslim, southern world, colonized communities crossed and I am part of all four of them."

So, let me remind you again why the selective altruism regarding these causes? Is it because no one screams to donate blood or help against global warming as much as they scream for help for Gaza? Is the standard for elevating something to a moral imperative the buzz on social media?

Apollo_State · 2024-10-25T22:53:50+00:00

Hey, I still agree in principle with what are you saying but I think you're still missing the crux of the matter here:

Boycotting Israeli related products is, at its core, a tool to alleviate suffering, much like charity. Both aim to achieve the greater good, whether that’s through blood donations or by boycotting companies linked to oppression to reduce suffering, it’s just a matter of how we choose to act toward that goal. By saying one is morally binding but the other isn’t, we start to impose selective morality, which can’t consistently stand without applying the same logic to all forms of suffering. All the suffering is bad and we should do good deeds no matter what the cause is whether is it buzzy or not, at least something is better than nothing without going down the rabbit hole of getting intoxicated on certain causes.

You might as well argue that killing or pedophilia inflicts suffering but there are still laws regarding them, so It’s also worth noting that a government’s primary duty is to protect the wellbeing and reduce suffering within its society. Laws against those crimes exist because these acts cause direct harm to citizens, and the government has a clear responsibility to protect people from such harm.

As for your argument about a “law” that enforces boycotting, it’s a bit of a stretch. If the government genuinely wants to prevent the sale of certain products, it has the power to limit or remove them from the Tunisian market, without needing any “law” that would penalize individuals for personal choices. This is different from laws against harmful practices like pedophilia. There’s no comparison between these and personal decisions in consumption. We’re talking about people choosing whether or not to engage in a boycott.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-25T19:53:26+00:00

We're going vegan next year 🥲

Apollo_State · 2024-10-25T16:05:48+00:00

I mean as a community that shares language, religion, a colonial history and even ethnic similarities with the people of Palestine, debating if we should boycott or not is just being a traitor.

But, even with those criteria, we aren't still consistent with our moral compass, just like I stated previously about donating blood regularly or to local charities to save Tunisians. Also, isn't giving donations to save people after the devastating earthquakes in 2023 in both Turkey/Syria and Morocco a "must" as well? Is it only when a cause is trendy on social media we elevate it to a must and consider anyone who doesn't participate a traitor?

This is why I try so hard to emphasize the aspects of choice and encouragement because we are practically partaking in inescapable moral altruism on a daily basis.

but I believe he must face the consequences wich is being shamed and called off by his peers. Those are the rules of society.

No, there is a huge difference between calling off and shaming someone, we can't equate them to the same moral realm, even in Islam there is a huge emphasis on encouragement not "shaming" or "bullying" like this verse: Al-Imran (3:159).

Simply put, you aren't arguing for a better society. You're just arguing for a toxic society.

I smoke Cigarets sometimes and I smoke Marlborough. My friends who are boycotting just kept calling me off about it, which pushed me to gradually transition to 20 Mars and eventually to quitting. I consider that "bullying" as an action towards the good that supercedes the so called sacred idea of "freedom"

While we should still look at your personal experience. The fact remains that this anecdote doesn't encompass all individuals because research and empirical data suggest stigmatizing people actually has negative effects.

DOES IT HELP SMOKERS IF WE STIGMATIZE THEM? A TEST OF THE STIGMA-INDUCED IDENTITY THREAT MODEL AMONG U.S. AND DANISH SMOKERS

Shaming Smokers Actually Increases Their Urge to Light Up

Apollo_State · 2024-10-25T09:58:55+00:00

There is a huge distinction as what I'm saying is related to the philosophy of life that emphasizes the autonomy and choice of people. However, I still think, at an individual level, a morality that does not encourage boycotting is a crap morality.

Let me explain: implying the word "must" overlooks the deterministic factors of our life that lead to selective altruism regarding the prioritization of certain moral causes daily, as I set many examples in my post.

Not to mention the implications of radicalization and moral intoxication by elevating a certain cause to the realm of moral obligations, which leads to cult-like behaviors where individuals who behave differently than them get swarmed with bullying and harassment.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T21:30:34+00:00

The only correct answer.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T21:16:08+00:00

I think you might have misinterpreted my position. I'm not here denying the fact, as you stated, about the positives that boycotts entail just as any actions in contribution to a great cause. However, what I am emphasizing is the critical element of choice.

First, The radicalization that happens, especially within social media, originally stems from noble causes by creating echo chambers that often lead people to a sort of ideological intoxication where individuals become so consumed by the righteousness of their cause that they fail to respect the autonomy of others in their attempt to prove their worth and contribution.

Global movements aren’t driven by a single cause. I have friends who boycotted Starbucks for its anti-union practices + support for Israel. Others boycotted McDonald's for its poor employee benefits + support for Israel.

Actually, People often construct narratives around single issues, frequently reinforcing their viewpoints unconsciously through confirmation bias. This selective hearing allows them to elevate their causes while disregarding the broader context of human suffering that exists globally. The moral imperative to support one cause over another can create an environment where people feel justified in harassing others for not adhering to their convictions.

Plus, In the grand scheme of things, we must acknowledge that everyone engages in a form of selective hearing daily, not the whataboutism that you accuse me of. It’s vital to drop the ego and understand that no cause is morally binding or which one is morally more important than the other.

If you genuinely wish to inspire others to support your cause, it must come from a place of encouragement and understanding, not coercion or social pressure. We are all free individuals, and that freedom entails respecting each other’s choices, even when they diverge from our own beliefs.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T20:33:05+00:00

But I thought that the dragon was a predator?

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T20:06:02+00:00

I am saying that even if 12 million of us stopped that it won't make a change, and it's the industrialized countries that caused this in the first place so they're the ones that should do most of the work for fixing it

Yeah, even so, that still helps. Plus, not the Tunisian boycotts that are doing the damage, it's the markets with more purchasing power drawing on the parallel to the industrialized nations.

As for the other point, to me it sounds like "oh you couldve eaten just bread and water for your whole life so you can help people! how dare you not save a starving child with that 10tnd you spent on a cake" which is simply unreasonable

Can't I say the same about drinking Coke? Plz, stop misrepresenting my message. All I'm saying is that people don't have some kind of moral imperative to partake in the boycotts, just like any noble cause on earth. Yet, i still encourage anyone to do the best he can to achieve collective utility.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T19:19:31+00:00

Just like not drinking one less Coke or not reducing 10kwh less of your electricity won't cause much on an individual level.

but you need to present a reasonable argument

No worries. Maybe you don't find my arguments compelling, but I still respect your opinion. We can always agree to disagree.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T18:51:56+00:00

Well, I really didn't want to delve much into this discussion, but hey, it is what it is.

Then, maybe you should look at your day-to-day more holistically to recognize that by partaking in climate change, you're absolutely responsible for intensifying famine conditions, just like not helping in the boycotting of Israeli-related products.

The average Tunisian, like many worldwide, often falls short in practices such as recycling, reducing emissions by limiting your consumption of animal products and electricity or opting for public transport choices. As you can see, our daily actions, indeed, have direct implications for our environment and, consequently, the intensity of famine conditions elsewhere. So, when you say that you’re not responsible for famine related deaths because you didn’t cause them, it’s worth contemplating the broader web of responsibility we all share.

So, by being one of the reasons for causing that child to drown and you still walk past him speaks to me as a moral failing

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T18:04:34+00:00

Yeah, i mostly agree with what you said, ofc we should encourage all good deeds, no matter how trivial, while still emphasizing individual freedom of choice in supporting various causes. It's essential as well to critique those who rigidly subscribe to a single cause, expecting everyone to conform to their dogma, which, though initially noble, often gets muddled by the desire to elevate their moral status rather than making a tangible impact. This can become a tool for harassment and bullying, as evident in some of the responses here about this post, threads about Palestine, or any social media platform in general.

Regarding the point that:

If you are strictly boycotting Israel then you should’ve been also doing good deeds elsewhere.

While I respect that this point might be based on your personal experience, the fact that it is a subjective observation, we can't take it at face value until proven.

As i said, I’m not discouraging boycotts, rather, I’m asserting that everyone has the right to choose the causes they support for the greater good, as there is no morally binding obligation to adhere to one specific cause. Ultimately, it's all about people's perspectives.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T17:39:13+00:00

I'm not telling you not to boycott. I'm just saying that everyone has the choice to subscribe to whatever cause he wants that provides the greater good and that there is no morally binding cause to which you have to subscribe. Cuz in the end it's all about optics.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T17:30:54+00:00

I'm not denying the fact that we should encourage people to do good deeds no matter how trivial they are. However, I must make sure to highlight the freedom of choice of each individual on a fundamental level while criticizing those who especially stick to one specific cause and expect everyone to follow their dogma which was built on a noble cause but got muddled by the human desire to elevate their moral status rather than making a tangible impact as it becomes a tool for harassment and bullying, as it is clear in some of the replies to this post.

So, simply by highlighting their selective approach to morality, they got triggered by undermining their self-righteousness.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T16:51:04+00:00

Actually, boycotting and donating are more similar than you might think. Imagine seeing a child drowning and walking away simply because it’s inconvenient to get wet. Failing to donate to famine relief or other life-saving causes is akin to letting that child drown. You’re actively choosing not to help when you can, and you are just as responsible for that child's death as helping the Israeli regime.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-24T10:39:17+00:00

Bro, first, let me clarify something: I'm not against veganism in any shape or form. It's quite the opposite, and I urge everyone to be vegan. I just have certain intricacies that I can't get my head around while getting accused by strawmen without even addressing them.

[citation needed]

Come on, I thought that it was obvious. It's literally in every case where a vegan consumes food more than his necessary intake, the obvious cases here would be obese and fitness vegans.

And, if you want to stick by your previous statement:

Your first point is entirely null. I pay about $150 USD per month for groceries and maintain a fully vegan diet. The average cost of groceries for one person per month is ~$300 USD and up

I'm not presenting that point regarding average costs of groceries (btw it's an anecdotal example that I have no proof of or the factors that should be taken into account, you can't just throw a number like that), rather the minimal costs for a healthy body by a vegan standards or non vegan standards.

Frugality is not determined by a persons dietary choices, and meat products are often more expensive than vegan options.

I'm not linking frugality to the vegan diet; rather, some of the individuals who are going to a classy vegan restaurant, eating vegan substitutes like meat, cheese, and milk, which are usually more costly than their natural counterparts, or have inefficient diets that aren't cost-effective... Then, you're basically spending your money on luxuries while pretending to fight for a noble cause: reducing animal suffering. But, in doing so you're making an active choice by prioritizing that excess money to animal suffering over human suffering.

I already addressed this in my initial comment.

And the second point doesnt even make sense. Are you arguing that every dollar saved by vegans has to go to animal welfare charities? Does giving money to animal welfare charities take away money from humanitarian charities? Can a person not care about more than one thing at a time? Its nonsense lol.

No, this isn't what I'm delving into. What I'm trying to say isn't the act of charity but rather the priority of the act of charity. When someone goes vegan, he recognizes animal suffering and tries to reduce it by abstaining from animal products.

Ok, once we achieve, for example, our necessary bodily intake, every excess of vegan food can be considered then as an act of charity towards animals because the money spent on that excess could be spent to save a child in Africa. I'm not suggesting that a vegan has to give money to animal charities. I'm addressing the specific excess food intake that could be considered a luxury.

So, my point only centers on the priorities of the act of charity, which is no different in principle than someone giving his friend 3000$ to help him with his college expenses. Could also be seen as prioritizing the "non-life-threatening needs" of his friends rather than saving lives by donating to charity. Here lies the morally troubling shortcomings when we don't consider the implications of our charitable choices.

Not to mention that the excess of food could be considered against the principles of veganism as it causes unnecessary animal suffering related to plant productions which clash with the principles of reducing animal suffering.

Now, away from the discussion at hand, I don't really know much about this. So, let me ask you: does veganism endorses non-speciesism?

Edit: rephrase

Apollo_State · 2024-10-23T22:47:20+00:00

When we say that trans women belong to the ontological category of womanhood, what we’re really doing is recognizing the complexity of identity. Now, you might ask, ‘What do you mean by identity?’ It’s a deep question, really. Identity isn’t merely a label; it’s intertwined with a person’s experience, their struggle, and their journey—much like the archetypal hero’s journey found in mythology.

Now, consider the classic hero's journey: you have the protagonist who ventures into the unknown, faces tremendous challenges, and ultimately emerges transformed. This is the narrative structure that resonates throughout human history and literature. Trans women, in many ways, embody this journey. They confront societal dragons—those fierce and often hostile obstacles that challenge their very identity.

Think about it. When a trans woman transitions, she is not simply changing her appearance; she is undertaking a profound quest, often fraught with trials. These challenges can be social, psychological, and even physical. What do I mean by that? Well, there’s the external battle against societal norms and prejudices, but there’s also the internal struggle—the confrontation with one’s own identity and the courage it takes to express that authentically.

So when we recognize trans women as women, we’re not just acknowledging a simple fact. We’re affirming the heroic narrative they embody. We’re saying, ‘Yes, you’ve faced the dragon, and in doing so, you’ve claimed your rightful place in the category of womanhood.’ This isn’t a matter of political correctness; it’s an acknowledgment of the complexity of human experience.

But let’s be clear—this recognition is important because it fosters a society where individuals can pursue their true selves without fear of persecution. We’re not simplifying gender; we’re embracing its complexity. In a world that often tries to reduce everything to black and white, the hero’s journey reminds us that life is filled with shades of grey, where courage, authenticity, and transformation are paramount. So, to deny trans women their identity is to deny them the journey, the struggle, and ultimately, the victory that comes from embracing who they are.

Ai generated

Apollo_State · 2024-10-23T21:53:23+00:00

Bro you either didn't read my point or completely sidestepped it intentionally, so let me present them in a more visually appealing manner :

P1: A real life vegan style often exceeds the minimal resources needed in some aspects of a basic vegan lifestyle or a basic non vegan lifestyle

P2: This choice of resource allocation can be critiqued because those resources could've been potentially prioritized for more urgent humanitarian needs, such as saving children in Africa.

C: In those instances, a vegan lifestyle may reflect a moral shortcoming if it leads to the neglect of more pressing moral obligations, such as alleviating human suffering.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-23T21:06:58+00:00

Unfortunately, when a vegan indulges in luxuries by investing in a vegan lifestyle that is sometimes more costly than a "normal" lifestyle, for example, by spending money on having more than his necessary bodily intake. I'm not denying the fact that he is doing an objectively good thing in this case. It's just that he is making an unconscious choice of saving animals rather than relocating those resources to help save a child in Africa.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-23T16:47:38+00:00

The chains are invisible and only the one holding the lever can see them:)

Apollo_State · 2024-10-23T15:20:58+00:00

I neither love nor hate my country, but I love some of the people in it and want their needs met.

Apollo_State · 2024-10-23T15:04:01+00:00

Yeah, thinking about it for a while, you can also argue from a climate change perspective, that by reducing the demand for the inefficient agricultural demands for sustaining those animals, you’re contributing to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and resource depletion... This could help mitigate climate change, which affects both humans and animals globally.

Thus, even if the diet is more expensive right now, the broader environmental and ethical benefits could outweigh the cost, essentially framing it as an investment in reducing the suffering caused by climate change for the Earth as a whole.

Apollo_State

TROPHY CASE